A I would like to say this immediately. I am just mentioning it briefly for the total period. Originally, when I got there there were the following units committed. In Serbia there were two German divisions, the 704th and the 717th Division. These were divisions consisting of older men. They were poorly trained regarding their equipment and regarding the means of supply at their disposal; for mountain warfare they were not suitable. Small parts of these two divisions had been stationed in Croatia temporarily. Besides, there was in Serbia the Bulgarian occupation corps which at that time contained three relatively good Bulgarian Divisions.
Finally, there was also xis German rifle battalions of which, according to my memory, three or four were used for the protection of the railroad lines and to be distributed to administrative subarea headquarters. Then there were native forces, the Russian Protective Corps, three weak regiments consisting of Russian immigrants. They were old men but willing to serve and then there was about to develop the Serbian Volunteer Corps. I shall not say anything about the Serbian State Guard. That belongs to the police.
Then there was in Croatia the combat group West Bosnia with the 714th and 713th Divisions under General Stahl. Parts of the 704th and 717th Divisions were there also. If one wants to calculate the strength, if I remember it correctly by heart, around October 1942 one arrives at a figure of about 48 Battalions in Serbia without the native forces which I did not calculate. Of these 48 Battalions there were 56% German, may be 46% Bulgarians.
A. In the meantime another division had been inserted, and that was the SS Division Prinz Eugen. This division had been recruited in the Banat, and around the first of October it took over the securing of the Western part of Serbia. During the course of time this picture changed considerably. A year later there were, instead of 48 battalions, according to my memory, only 36 battalions. Amongst those 22% were German and 78% were bad Bulgarian troops. The original active Bulgarian divisions had been replaced by divisions of another wave, and every six months officers and men were interchanged, and these officers and men were employment from their civilian occupation. Worst of all was around January, 1944. At this time we had only 34 battalions, and of those 18% were Germans and 82% were bad Bulgarian units. These German battalions were Infantry men, and there was one police regiment which was subordinate to the Higher SS and Police Leader.
Q. Witness, you just previously mentioned the administrative sub-area headquarters. What kind of authorities were these? Just a minute please. And in what relation were they to your own agency and to your person?
A. The administrative sub-area headquarters and district headquarters were the German territorial authorities in the country. There was one administrative sub-area headquarters in Belgrade and a district headquarters in Pozarevac, which was subordinate to it, if I may say this, and then there was one administrative sub-area headquarters in Sabac and a district headquarters in Valjevo which was subordinate to it. And then there was one administrative sub-area headquarters in Vanacka-Banja, which was later called Cacak. I will spell it: V-A-N-A-C-K-A, Vanacka-Banja,; C-A-C-A-K, Cacak. These had district headquarters in Uzice and in Kosovska-Mitrovica, in Krusevac, and in Kragujevac.
Q. Witness, what were the tasks of these headquarters? I mean in relation to the Military Commander?
A. They were the territorial administrative authorities. They were a kind of sub-division of the total administration. As such they had comparatively few military tasks.
The focal point of their work was on the administrative side. For this purpose they had a socalled administrative group attached to them with administrative officials.
Q. Witness, were these headquarters, the ones which you have enumerated here subordinate to the Military Commander?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Did they belong to the group of which you were in charge, as Chief, or were they within the sphere of authority of the administrative staff?
A. They were both. Concerning their military and territorial tasks they were dealt with at the command staff; concerning their administrative staff these matters were dealt with at the administrative staff.
Q. You have just previously told us something about the Higher SS and Police Leader, at least you mentioned it. As Chief of Staff did you have anything to do with him? Was he subordinate to you in any way or what was the relation of the Higher SS and Police Leader? Please always make a pause, Herr von Geitner.
A. The Higher SS and Police Loader was subordinate to the Commanding General and Commander immediately, and that concerning only his person. He received his directives and instructions concerning the police security measures for Serbia from the Reich Fuehrer SS directly. And he and his police troops had only to be subordinate to the Military Commander if an open insurrection had to be fought down. I remember this service regulation fairly precisely.
Q. Did this Higher SS and Police Leader have the obligation to inform the Commander for Serbia, that is, your agency, about the directives which he received directly from the Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler?
A. I don't know any more the exact working concerning this regulation. I only know that something was contained in the Service Regu lation about this matter, but in actual fact he did neither inform the Military Commander concerning his directives which he received from Higher Quarters, nor concerning the reports which he, in turn, sent to Higher Headquarters.
Quite soon I realized that this man, beyond that, also spied on our agency. He gave his personal opinion and judgment on personalities and measures taken by this agency. And he complained. Subordinate to him were the supervision over the Serbian police and the Serbian State Guard. He did not only supervise the Serbian State Guard but also the Serbian police administration.
Q. And you, as Chief of Staff, what did you have to do with the Higher SS and Police Leader in Belgrade?
A. He was not subordinate to me. I had, therefore, nothing to with him unless there were some matters which we had to deal with together.
Q. Was there then yet another plenipotentiary in Belgrade by any chance, a man who made the work of the Military Commander even more difficult?
A. Yes, there was the plenipotentiary of the Foreign Office pre in Belgrade. That was the envoy Benzler. He was to be informed by the Military Commander of all measures which might have been of a political significance and importance. I expressly put it this way. Political significance, not only foreign political significance, and I especially put it this way, which might have had this significance during war-time.
That was a lot actually regarding the administration.
Q. How, then, did these works next to each other get along? I mean this work of various agencies and various plenipotentiaries in the administrative spheres. How did they got along, especially concerning your own activity?
A. This parallel work, as we put it, this multiple work had a disastrous effect. What can an administration be which has no influence whatsoever on economy? What can an administration be which has no in fluence on police matters?
It is only a torso. Not even in National Socialist Germany where, after all, according to my knowledge, Himmler was Minister of Interior, or even before Himmler became Minister of the Interior, in this Germany there was in the lower and middle administrative authorities the police and the administration combined in one hand. The Landrat was at the same time in charge of the administration and of police matters. And the same applied to the district president in Serbia; however, in this difficult country with this difficult population there existed beside the administrative organization a parallel police administrative organization, so that in the office of an administrative sub-area headquarters for instance, there would be the sub-area headquarters commander with his administrative group. Then, the police district headquarters and the Serbian district commander would also be there. They all existed next to each other. The separation of authorities between police and actual administration had been handled according to the service schedule of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and was to be carried out according to this schedule. However, this regulation was so flexible that not very much could be done with it. I'll just give you one example: The registration of inhabitants and the supervision of the inhabitants belonged to the scope of the police work. Next to it there was at the office of the same district commander. And this deputy also interfered in all matters going on in the district. One can therefore, imagine or rather I'd like to add something: A similar state existed at the office of the district headquarters where there was also a police district leader, a representative of the economy, and a Serbian district chief. These agencies always came into conflict with each other. I'll just give you one strong examply: The Military Commander whose task it was to provide peace and order in Serbia, was particularly interested in supplying for the Serbian population with food as smoothly as possible, in order to keep the population pacified. The Plenipotentiary for Economy, who was subordi nate to the Four-year Plan, did not even deem it necessary to inform the Military Commander of what turn-over in food and grain the Fouryear Plan demanded.
Only on request, and much too late, was the Military Commander informed. I was concerned with this matter, and I realized that it could not be handled this way. I can assure you that during the first weeks and months of my activity I don't believe I exaggerate if I say that 75% of my whole work was concerned with coordinating those various elements, in order to create the basis for peace and order in the country. My Military Commander had already, for six months, tried to cope with the situation. And now I made the attempt, but I did not succeed.
Q. Witness, the Prosecution charges you with somehow having participated in reprisal measures, in arrests of hostages, in shootings of hostages, and in similar actions. Who was responsible in Serbia for such matters? Who was the responsible person?
A. When, in July, 1942, I arrived in Serbia I was informed by General Bader amongst other things of the fact that, in accordance with an order which was issued by the OKW, 50 Serbians were to be shot to death for every killed German soldier; for every wounded German soldier 25 were to be shot to death, and apart from that a certain number was to be shot in case of sabotage acts and surprise attacks.
Q. What did General Bader tell you? Who was to issue this order?
A. He immediately told me that he, on the basis of his experience, had ordered the following arrangement. The decision was to be made and the order was to be issued only and solely by him. He added that he had done this in order to relieve the units, as well as the district commanders, of the responsibility for these measures.
Q. May it please the Tribunal, in this connection I would like to submit as Exhibit No. 6, Document No. 15, in Document Book Geitner No. I. This is Document No. 15, Exhibit No. 6, and we find it on Page 49. This is an affidavit by Dr. Wenzel von Kohoutek. He was an agricultural economist, a German National. I am only reading under Roman numeral II, the Arabic numerals 1 through 4, and the reading of the rest of the document I reserve for another context. It says under Roman numeral II:
"The following statements refer to my position as intelligence officer on the staff of the Military Commander for Serbia from 15 April 1941 to 30 Sep 1943 and then as liaison officer at the German embassy in Belgrade from 1 Oct 1943 to 31 Dec 1944.:
1.) I know Herr v. Geitner very well, since I often received instructions and orders from him in the course of my official employment and likewise made verbal reports to him.
2.) I have always known Herr v. GEITNER as a warm-hearted man of humane sentiments. As a superior, he always required strict obedience and performance of duty, and he himself set a perfect example in this respect in ever way. He always maintained his position as Chief of the General Staff, without, however, laying claim to any special powers which exceeded the scope of his official position. "The commander was, and always remained, General of Artillery BADER", As General v. GEITNER repeatedly emphasized.
3.) I know that the Military Commander for Serbia, General of Artillery BADER, reserved orders for the arrest of hostages, for the shooting of prisoners taken in reprisal and for other retaliatory measures exclusively to himself end that nobody else had any influence on his decisions. From many conversations which I had the opportunity to hold with Herr v. GEITNER I gather that he was not in agreement with the measures regarding retaliation ordered from supreme quarters and that he suffered in his mind from the impossibility of altering these.
4.) Herr v. GEITNER rejected in particular the methods and train of thought of the SD (SD is the abbreviation for Security Service). His position as Chief of the General Staff, however, did not give him the opportunity and authority to stop these measures."
That is half as far as I want to read this document from 1 to 4. The document has been sworn to properly and has been sworn to properly.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, this particular affidavit raises only one point and that is that the affiant lives in Nurnberg. Now, I don't know whether or not at a later time we will call this particular individual for cross-examination or not. However, I feel that if the defense is of the opinion that this particular affidavit is of enough importance to submit it in evidence, the affiant being available in Nurnberg, the witness then in person is better evidence than his affidavit. I just wondered how the Tribunal feels, if Dr. Sauter had produced this witness rather than his affidavit without additional delay and without inconveniencing anybody.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any ruling in connection with these trials that bears upon your comment?
MR. RAPP: Yes, there is, Your Honor. In the other courts it has been so ruled in a number of Tribunals.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything in the general rules that set up these courts that bears upon this?
MR. RAPP: The rule I am at present following is the rule of best evidence, being the person rather than his affidavit, and procedures have been established and of which I would like the Tribunal to take judicial notice, in other courts, including the INT, where when witnesses are available, that is right in town, and at liberty, they should be produced in lieu of their affidavit.
DR. SAUTER: May I add something to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Sauter. I would like to have your explanation as to why the witness was not called.
DR. SAUTER: I have worked here in Nurnberg in the Courthouse for two years, and am somewhat versed in this sphere. We have always assumed that the person who submits the evidence, either the defense counsel or the Prosecution, should have the liberty to decide whether he wants to submit an affidavit or whether he wants to call the witness to the witness stand. The allegation of the prosecution that a practice to the contrary exists is not correct.
In the various trials which have been conducted here in Nurnberg we quite frequently experienced that the Prosecution brought affidavits of important witnesses who sat next door in jail, and if the defense then demanded to have the witnesses produced on the witness stand then we were told by the Tribunal and by the Prosecution always and at all times the defense can do that. It can demand to have the witness called on the stand, but that does not change the admissibility of the affidavit.
In numerous cases the prosecution referred to this procedure, and whatever right the prosecution demands for itself should also be available to the defense. If the prosecution therefore wishes to call this witness who lives in Nurnberg to the stand then he can be produced for cross-examination, but still the affidavit is admissible. Just as we had on the other hand agreed to the fact that the Prosecution submit affidavits of witnesses who sat next door in jail.
MR. RAPP: The reply of Dr. Sauter is a little general in nature. I admit at the very beginning of the INT proceedings, and I am also here as long as Dr. Sauter, if I may mention that parenthetically, the prosecution tried to submit a number of affidavits of witnesses who when signing the affidavits were here and who later were transferred, and returned and were gone again. Those affidavits were not at that time admitted and it was ruled that the witness must be produced in person. There was no clear cut decision on this particular basis. However, unless we are going in a retrograde movement and revert back two years ago, I say that in all following trials, in the Pohl case, in the Justice Case, and in other cases, if they form a basis for this ruling, if a witness was in jail the prosecution has produced that witness and it has not submitted an affidavit in lieu of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me interrupt, and shorten this a little bit. I think the liberality of these rules has been good for the general purpose of getting to the truth and to the facts, but we still must be conscious of certain fundamental rules of evidence, and one of them is we should produce the best evidence where it is possible.
How, if this witness is in the city of Nurnberg, the best evidence is to have him here in Court. That doesn't say that under certain circumstances, with a desire to get to the truth and the facts, the rules of evidence may be extended a little bit for the purpose of getting to what we may hope to be real justice, but where this witness is here it seems to me ho should be presented here and that Ms testimony in court is the best evidence.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, the situation is quite simple, either the prosecution is satisfied with the affidavit and then everything is in order, or the prosecution wished to call the witness for cross examination, and then I shall approach the witness and I shall take care that he appears here in court. There is no particular difficulty concerned with this problem. In other trials we have had -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Doctor. This Tribunal has the highest regards for other Tribunals, and their rulings, but we are going to assume the responsibility for our own rulings, and it seems to me and I am sure it is the thought of the Tribunal, that we should have this witness here. The Prosecution has made an objection and there is no necessity of further comment. The objection will be sustained.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, the consequence of this will be the following: in the future I shall take the liberty of always reminding the Tribunal of its decision when the prosecution wishes to submit the affidavit of a witness who is here in jail then I too shall have to maintain the point of view that the best evidence is the testimony of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have that privilege and the court will take care of the situation when it arises.
DR. SAUTER: May I than make inquiry, Your Honor, on which day I am to produce the witness here?
I assume that the witness still resides in Nurnberg, and I shall ask the witness to appear here on whatever day the Tribunal wishes to examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Whenever you wish to bring him in, Dr. Sauter. If you can bring him tomorrow or the following the time the defendant concludes his testimony, -- it is a matter for you to decide. And it has been suggested if you so wish you could have him here tomorrow morning and let him give his testimony.
DR. SAUTER: I don't believe I can get the witness here as fast as all that.
THE PRESIDENT: Whenever it is convenient with you it will be agreeable with the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, it is very close to adjournment time and perhaps we can adjourn at this time, rather than start on some question that would not be able to conclude.
The Tribunal will adjourn until 9:30 to morrow morning.
(Thereupon at 4:30 p.m. the Tribunal adjourned until 0930 a.m.
23 October 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Wilhelm List, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 October 1947, 0930, Justice Carter presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal V. Military Tribunal V is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in court except the defendant von Weichs who is in the hospital and the defendant von Leyser who is being held for an interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Carter will preside at this day's session.
PRESIDEING JUDGE CARTER: You may proceed.
KURT von GEITNER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant von Geitner):
Q Witness, yesterday you told us that your Commander told you at the time that reprisal measures be reserved for himself and you were not to interfere with these matters. I would now be interested to know what did you have to do in your capacity as Chief of Staff with reprisal measures at all?
A When I came to the Southeastern area and when General Bader informed me about these things, the whole problem was an entirely new one to me. I did not know whether the same situation applied to other theaters of war and I didn't know how it was handled in other theaters of war. General Bader told me that he himself detested these collective measures but since they had been ordered from higher headquarters and besides the attitude of the bands and the behavior of the bands and those parts of the population that were on their side of such a nature that one had to resort to harsh measures because otherwise one couldn't just cope with the situation.
Besides, he told me, which I indicated yesterday, that I need not bother about these matters. Of course, I was to be informed but it was purely his affair to take decisions and that was because he was the holder of executive power which could not be delegated to anybody else; and, furthermore, he was the judicial authority in the area.
Q Witness -
A I beg your pardon. May I say something else? I frankly admit that this instruction which was given to me by General Bader suited me because I did not feel attracted to the whole problem at all. But a time came when I came into completely new circumstances down there in the Southeast I could not possibly, judge what measures would be necessary and what measures were not necessary. In any case, General Bader regarded at the time this measure as a measure of military necessity.
Q Witness, during the war there was a servicing regulation, the so-called "Red Donkey" -- that is, the manual for the General Staff officers.
A Yes.
Q Did you have that book during the war and did you study it? You can answer with "yes" or "no."
A Yes, I did have a look at it occasionally.
Q Did you confirm by reading the book what General Bader told you, that only the holder of executive power and the judicial authority could order such measures and that these facts complied with the servicing regulation?
A Yes.
Q Witness, who ordered reprisal measures and other such things and who requested the Commander of Serbia to order them? Who dealt with all these matters before General Bader made his decisions?
A The request was made: (a) by Administrative Sub area Headquarters, (b) by troop commanders, (c) by the Higher SS and Police Leader.
Q And who did then work on such matters in your staff -- that is, in the staff of the Military Commander, before they were submitted to the Commander himself?
A These questions were dealt with by an officer who had been appointed for the task especially, by the Commander. He was a legally trained man and also trained in administrative matters and he examined the problems at hand with regard to the correctness of the description of the events, and then he submitted his results to the Commander. The Commander personally made the decision.
Q Witness, did you by any chance, by looking at documents submitted during this trial, find any documents which show that not you had to deal with instructions of this kind but another officer?
A Yes, I believe there are two cases which show this clearly. One case is an entry in to the War Diary, if I am not mistaken, dated January 1943. I believe it's actually dated the 30th of January 1943.
Q Witness, I will give you this excerpt from the War Diary to support your memory.
DR. SAUTER: May I inform the Tribunal that this document which I am showing to the witness now will be contained in Geitner Document Book IV under Document 88. It will be later submitted to the Tribunal. It is contained in Document Geitner Book IV, Document 88, and it is an entry into the War Diary, 30 January 1943.
Q Maybe you would like to read this entry, witness, and explain to us.
A "O I will report to the Military Commander about new regulations regarding reprisal measures."
Q And what is shown from this document?
A This document shows that the "OI" was the expert on these letters.
Q Was this the 1st lieutenant who was mentioned yesterday by a witness?
A Yes, he was the one, OI just happened to have another document here. This was contained in the document book of the prosecution, XVIII, Document NOKW-698. It is contained on page 3 and concerns a discussion with Gruppenfuehrer Meissner and under figure "3" I would like you to have a look at this passage.
Maybe you would like to read it and give us the explanation.
A Thank you. This is a note concerning a discussion between General Felber and Gruppenfuehrer Meissner and it is dated the 7th of January 1944. It says there under figure "3":
"Reprisal measures for Police Captain Hoffmann who was shot: Meissner suggests to shoot 25 Draza Mihajlovic followers and 25 Communists. Besides, he will send an SD Command to Kusic in order to clarify the relations between the attacker and the population of the village."
Then we have here a note by General Felber which says: "Discuss the matter with Ol."
Q Thus we happen to have here a few documentary examples from which you conclude that they prove that the instruction for these affairs were made by another officer of your staff.
A I wouldn't say "instruction." I would say "examination of the case and information of the Commanding General."
Q Witness, let us now assume the normal case. Let us assume that the Military Commander himself was present. What then did you personally have to do with reprisal measures? How did you have to deal with them, if at all?
A Of course, I was informed about these measures. I had to be informed about everything that went on in the country. In most cases I was informed through the Ol who told me about it after the Military Commander had made his decision. He would then come to my office and tell me the Commander has decided in this or that direction. In very many cases the Commander struck off items from the requests which he got. Sometimes the officer concerned would approach me after the Military Commander had made his decision and would show me the draft of the order which was made on the basis of the Military Commander's decision.
Q Witness, did you ever initial such retaliation orders of your Military Commander? Did you put your initial on them?
A Yes, that happened occasionally. It was not the rule. Thus initialing was not always made and was not even made in the majority of the cases, as I assert, before the draft of the order issued by the Military Commander, was submitted to me. In many cases this initialing was done later. Occasionally, it was done on the occasion of the weekly checkup of the files which the staff had to do before they went to the files.
Q Witness, what in your opinion and what according to your attitude was the legal significance of this initialing concerning the responsibility of the person who initialled it?
A If the Military Commander had issued an order concerning the handling of some affair or other and if the order was then passed on in the right legal form to the Operational Department -- what I mean is, if it was put down properly in draft -- it then came to me and if I initialled it, before it came to the Military Commander, then that meant that I was of the opinion that this order would comply with the will and wish of the Commander and that in my opinion it would comply with the orders of the superior authorities and that it had also been put down in the correct legal form.
Q In your opinion, did you take any responsibility by initialling a reprisal order with respect to its contents? To put it in other words, did you yourself believe that by initialling you became responsible for the reprisal measure?
A No, the responsibility remained according to the German point of view to the fullest extent with the Military Commander.
DR. SAUTER: May it please the Tribunal, I would like to submit this Document No. 8 in Document Book, Geitner I, contained on page 15. This document will get Exhibit No. 7, Geitner 7. May it please the Tribunal I would like to submit this document in this connection.
MR. RAPP: I believe this to be Exhibit No. 6. I believe the affidavit which Dr. Sauter submitted yesterday was to have been Exhibit 6 and it was not admitted into evidence in view of the objection of the witness which was to appear here.
DR. SAUTER: This document will have Exhibit No. 7 because I gave Exhibit 6 to another document which was admitted yesterday and that was the affidavit of Dr. von Kohoutek. That was the witness whose affidavit was read in part and who is to appear here for cross examination because he happens to reside in Nurnberg.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You can retain the number on the old exhibit if you care to. It hasn't been admitted in evidence but I think it is proper that you call the other one Exhibit 6 and this one Exhibit 7.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, Dr. Sauter referred to this witness as being called for cross examination. I believe this to be incorrect. He is not to be called for cross examination. Furthermore, if the witness is being produced by Dr. Sauter this affidavit becomes superfluous as such and, therefore, I believe if we give it a number now we will have to strike it at a later time anyhow.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The mere fact it has a number doesn't mean it is in evidence.
DR. SAUTER: I shall not call the witness Kohoutek as my witness. I have no doubt that the affidavit of a witness can be read and has to be accepted as evidence even if the witness is here in Nurnberg. The only possibility which is open to the prosecution in such a case is to demand that the witness be called for cross examination and if I do not produce the witness for cross examination then the prosecution has the possibility to demand that the affidavit should not be considered in evidence. But if I am prepared to produce the witness for cross examination then, in my opinion, the affidavit has to be considered as evidence and should also have an exhibit number. I shall, therefore, call the witness only for the purpose of cross examination. If the prosecution decides that they do not want a cross examination then I see no cause to produce the witness for cross examination. However, I am prepared, if the Tribunal considers it proper, to give this new document, which is Document No. Geitner No. 8, Exhibit No. 6. That is up to the Tribunal.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The difficulty is, Dr. Sauter, that while you have a very fixed opinion, it isn't the opinion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled yesterday that the witness being here in Nurnberg had to be produced and that the exhibit would not be accepted in evidence. Now, if you don't care to call the witness, that means the witness has no testimony before this Tribunal. We made that plain and the Tribunal is adhering to it, whatever your personal opinions may be.
DR. SAUTER: Then this document which I am just about to offer will receive Exhibit No. 6. This is an affidavit by General Halder. He was the former Chief of the German General Staff. The affidavit is dated the 25th of July 1947. It has been properly sworn to and has been certified by the Camp Commandant.
